Posted
by
timothy
on Wednesday May 26, 2010 @04:06PM
from the depends-who-you-trust-in-the-first-place dept.

mantis2009 writes "After recent complaints of anti-competitive behavior, the US Department of Justice has opened an inquiry into Apple's business practices for selling music. Investigators have specifically asked whether Apple colluded with record labels to thwart Amazon.com's music download store, according to the ever-present anonymous 'people briefed on the situation.' Allegedly, Apple threatened to retaliate if any music label participated in Amazon's 'MP3 Daily Deal' promotion, which offered early access to some MP3 tracks." So it looks like the Justice Department won the DoJ vs. FTC fight for the regulation bully pulpit.

Today wasn't the best day to become the highest-valued IT company in the world - edging out MSFT [google.com] (219.18B) by having a market cap [google.com] of 222.07B.

To give an idea of the scale of that achievement, Apple's share price has climbed about 560% in the past five years. Microsoft's is up 4%. Sure, market cap isn't a hugely useful measure (beyond bragging rights) of the value a company brings, but the trend is an interesting one, at least for Apple shareholders

As a consumer, and owner of several Apple products, I find their behavior to be far monopolistic than Microsoft's ever was. (Want to run Apple software? Buy Apple hardware. Want Apple hardware? It will always be loaded with Apple software. Want to load something on your iP*? Use ITMS, etc...) Do I think Apple really is a monopoly? No. But I never thought Microsoft was a monopoly, either.

Apple fans should hope Apple has better attorneys than Microsoft had when dealing with the DoJ. If Apple doesn't play ball

All the DOJ did was say "yep MS, you are a monopoly", the damage was already done. Microsoft managed to squash Netscape, BeOS, and all of their established competitors from the '90s.

Other than making MS more subtle in their EEE tactics, the ruling didn't do too much. Microsoft managed to come out on top with the DOJ hearings, yeah they got a stern talking to and some bad PR, but look at post-hearing MS, it was doing remarkably well and not losing marketshare till the disaster of Vista.

Apple has a lot more to fear than MS did. Apple doesn't supply the OS for most of the government's computers, MS does.

Err, why not get the Europeans to sort out this mess? They actually manage to do something* about Microsoft...
*It could have been better, I grant you but they have effectively forced their hand on opening up protocols and standards. There is however more time which needs to pass, not quite sure how much though.

It will get to that, for example: According to European law, people have the right to remove the batteries off a device and buy 3rd party... something Apple is not kin to do as they make way too much money in battery and replacement service.

So, replace the battery. There are literally hundreds of third party solutions to the 'sealed' battery in your iWhatever. Instead of screwdriver, you need a plastic spud. Not exactly the end of the world.

Apple has a lot to fear because you never know what will happen in court, if it gets to that. Judge Jackson considered the drive space used by IE DLLs an example of monopolistic behavior, because consumers were deprived of the use of that space, no matter how minuscule it was. He had a number of other reasons that were quite questionable, too. Didn't matter though.

A good prosecutor could have a field day with Apple's marketing tactics in music, books, hardware and software sales. Probably the app store, too. No doubt they are smart enough to settle, but who knows what DoJ might demand. If they decide to go to court, anything can happen.

As a consumer, and owner of several Apple products, I find their behavior to be far monopolistic than Microsoft's ever was. (Want to run Apple software? Buy Apple hardware. Want Apple hardware? It will always be loaded with Apple software. Want to load something on your iP*? Use ITMS, etc...)

The word you're looking for is 'proprietary' not 'monopoly'. You'll notice in the FS that it's about putting a competitor out of business as opposed to keeping people on their platform, which is what you just described.

Uhhh...You DO know that Apple owns over 90% [wikipedia.org] of the HDD based PMPs and more than 70% of ALL PMPs, yes? And since we are talking about music I'd find it hard for anyone to say that Apple was anything BUT a monopoly in that field.

I don't see how their lock in with iTMS and using that lock in to hamstring competitors is ANY different than MSFT using Windows to kill Netscape. So I'm sorry Apple fanboys if old Steve is using iTMS to screw over competitors they need to be busted. How is this any different from MSFT or Intel screwing those that refuse to play ball? MSFT said "Want good prices on windows? Screw BeOS and anybody else that wants to sell a desktop" while Intel said "Want a good deal on chips? Screw AMD and take this Netburst and like it" while Apple is saying "Want to be on iTMS? Screw Amazon". I don't see ANY difference in the tactics.

Just because old Steve has good taste doesn't mean he can screw his competitors with monopolistic behavior, hence the investigation. If the allegations are true it seems pretty open and shut to me. And before any fanboys scream "MSFT shill!" I would point out that to this day I STILL think MSFT should have been broken up. Too much power concentrated into a single company is never good for the market.

I don't have a problem with Apple requiring their hardware in order to run their software (there are so many other competing companies who don't, so there's no lock-in), or their software to run their iPads, iPhones, etc. (again, this describes any company who produces hardware that interfaces with another system; they're called drivers). Any computer you buy is loaded with software put on there by the vendor, so again, not an issue; at least the stuff Apple gives you has a good reputation and isn't cripple

I see a hint of hypocrisy here. You complain that they are to powerful, but you support them with your hard earned cash money. If they are bad, why do you give them money?

BTW - I've taught my kid properly. He bought a USED iPod, and immediately jailbroke the damned thing. He uses it as he wishes. He sent no money to Apple, and he got exactly what he wanted, and uses it in exactly the way he wishes. At this point in time, I believe he is aiming at an

Reminds of Forest Gump when Forest says he invested in a "fruit" company that turns out to be Apple. If people invested their money into Apple right after that movie came out, they'd be living like Gump themselves right now.

Reminds of Forest Gump when Forest says he invested in a "fruit" company that turns out to be Apple. If people invested their money into Apple right after that movie came out, they'd be living like Gump themselves right now.

It's just mind-blowing what you could do if you had 20 years of hindsight 20 years ago.

Today wasn't the best day to become the highest-valued IT company in the world - edging out MSFT [google.com] (219.18B) by having a market cap [google.com] of 222.07B.

That also gives Apple the second largest market cap period, behind only Exxon Mobil (278.64B). Rather incredible, since Apple only nudged into the top five last quarter and the top ten the quarter before that.

[sigh] Microsoft bought $150M worth of non-voting shares. Which they've since sold (at a handsome profit, although if they'd waited they'd have made more money). Apple had billions in the bank at the time, so it's hardly "keep them solvent".

The reason wasn't altruism, either. Microsoft did it to settle a court-case (along with granting Apple access to a broad base of MS patents) because they were about to be taken to the cleaners by Apple. MS also had to promise to keep developing MS Office for 5 years.

So it looks like the Justice Department won the DoJ vs. FTC fight for the regulation bully pulpit.

DoJ is the "bully" that the GP is referring to.

To the GP:

It's bully pulpit, i.e. that thing speakers stand in front of when they speak. A bully pulpit means you get to speak (usually you're preaching at someone), for no other reason than you said so, and apparently you're bigger (or are more important) than anybody else.

Generally, when you have a bully pulpit, you verbally beat the shit out of someone (rake them against the coals, put their feet to the fire, whatever metaphor you

The Justice Department has also reportedly been investigating the hiring practices at Apple and other top technology companies, including Intel, I.B.M. and Google, asking whether the companies have improperly agreed to avoid hiring each other’s employees.

I would like to see specifically what this investigation is about. I don't see why companies can't make this type of agreement. It sounds like an agreement to respect each others trade secretes by not hiring each others employees.

Or a friendly agreement not to snipe each other's talent, but on the other hand, it makes someone at Apple kind of trapped at Apple, since they might not be able to get a job at the other big corporations who would use them.

If it was the scientists at Micky d's and burger king, the ones that come up with the recipes. I think the same type of agreement would be completely acceptable. Protection of trade secretes, protection of each companies expensive talent.
Your argument doesn't stand the test of review. I'm not even sure I believe the argument of not being able to move from company to company is a valid argument.
If I have any of those companies on my resume, I can go anywhere looking for a job. And, I might ad. It would

But lets face it, Google, Apple, IBM, etc. are all very stable employers. Chances are they will exist in some form in 5 years. Why should I not have the right to move to a stable employer? Yeah, I can go to "anywhere" looking for a job but Google, Apple and IBM all pay very high wages and benefits. Why should I be locked out of the other 2 because I worked for one?

Apple has a bad habit of doing neither for some employees (most companies do actually), which is why they create these agreements. It saves the corporations money, while completely screwing their employees.

Why is that OK? Ever? You can have an NDA, and if the employee breaks it after they go to another company (you can work somewhere else and still keep an NDA), you can sue them into bankruptcy. T

According to the FTA, you won't get hired at Google, IBM, et al., if you currently work at Apple. The reverse is true. This may be illegal, but the companies' motivation is obviously something akin to a gentlemen's agreement not to poach from each other. It's ugly, but it's also still not the same as saying that working at Apple prevents you from quitting and then applying for a job somewhere else.

I'm sorry, this is retarded. Agreements like this amount to indentured servitude for the employees. In my experience, moving from one company to another was the surest way to boost my pay. Had I stayed with the same company for a decade, my merit rises would merely beat inflation. I would also be worth a lot less to a prospective employer due to not having a varied background.

I would like not only these pacts to be outlawed, but non-competes as well. For trade secrets, there's the court of law where trade secret disputes can be adjudicated.

How are you locked in?
You saying that having these companies on your resume restricts you in your job search? You saying that taking that type of experience to a startup company or other multi national company would not do you any good in your salary negotiations?
sorry, don't see it. Your not restricted in any way of finding a job of the same pay or better. You are underestimating who would be interested in your talents and what you can make.

Yeah, that's actually exactly what he's saying. Look into non-compete agreements. Then look at the paperwork you signed when you took your job to see if you have one or not. Finally, check and see if the terms end immediately upon leaving your current employer, or 1/2/5/10 years later.

There are only a few worthwhile companies which build operating systems, for instance. Tablets, mobile phone OS's, search engines, ads -- these are just a few highly competitive areas with few big players. If those players strike a pact, you'll have to change your career. This is shitty and unfair.

For the same reason Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft cannot sit down and coordinate the prices of consoles, games and accessories: cartels are bad. Therefore the regulation of an oligopoly is considered okay. In a oligopsony, similar affects arise from collusion: the buyers of services gain huge price setting power, because they no longer have to out-bid one another.

As i've been ranting about for a while now... It's time to either let Microsoft run its business in the same manner Apple does... or force Apple to deal with the same nonsense all of you impose on Microsoft.

When will we end the hypocrisy? Leave Microsoft alone, and go after the real evil... Apple.

When will we end the hypocrisy? Leave Microsoft alone, and go after the real evil... Apple.

This is the same logic that got us involved in Iraq, when the big problem was in Afghanistan. If Microsoft were left to its own devices, every computer maker would still be paying for a copy of a Windows license, even on computers that didn't have a copy of Windows on it. Like they already did before DOJ got on them. And yes, they would also be spending those billions in cash to sue Linux software makers for "paten

Really? They used to charge manufacturers for every computer they sold whether or not it had windows, this [wikipedia.org] is a fact [wikipedia.org]. They have already said that Linux infringes on their patents, this [cnn.com] is a fact [crn.com]. Assuming they would continue to charge manufacturers or pursue lawsuits on their "intellectual property" if they weren't restrained in some way isn't FUD, it is logical deduction.

Most people on/. are technical persons, and I wouldn't have to give them these direct links. Most people, including people like myse

See now that is an honest answer. I admire that. I agree.. lets hate them both so that we get what we want out of them... but one day we have to admit "this stuff is pretty good". If it warrants it of course.

Seriously, evil? We neuter words when we use them casually in a way they are not intended. We rail against politicians and marketers for bandying about certain words in the wrong situation while people here on Slashdot call Apple evil! You may not like them; you may not like their products; you may not like their policies; you may not like their procedures but, let's be serious, the company is not evil.

We neuter words when we use them casually in a way they are not intended.

Yes we do.

But then, many people tout the ipad as "truly magical and revolutionary" too. Oh, and "What the device does is extraordinary. It is the best browsing experience you've ever had.... It's unbelievably great... way better than a laptop."

Words are used casually in ways they really aren't intended all the time. The trick is in seeing past them.

So as it stands, Microsoft has to play by different rules. The comparisons are not fair.

Actually, Microsoft has to play by the same rules as everyone else, even though they have a potential monopoly. That's the whole point of anti-trust laws. The monopoly allows them to do things that they could not do with strong competition (as you pointed out). The law forces them to act as though they are simply the biggest competitor in the market, not a monopoly.

Apple, oddly enough, must abide by the same rules. So does everyone who does business in the United States, in fact. Apple has been treadin

But the only thing Apple has a monopoly over is Apple products. Microsoft had a monopoly that controlled an entire industry - other people's companies, not just Microsoft stuff. It would be different if Microsoft only made Windows for Microsoft computers.

That's right. Apple's simply better at it. They disguised their monopoly, and profited off it longer. Why do you think Apple's always pushed its elitist standard? To make it seem more niche, to avoid exactly what happened to Microsoft. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to lock an iPod or iPhone or iAnything to only use iTunes, except to promote hegemony. Sure, they could *optimize* their stuff to work best with their software. That's how it should be. But if I want to use Windows Media Player, or VLC, then I should be able to.

Actually, it is not illegal to have a monopoly. Natural monopolies aside, if someone is able to garner enough goodwill and purchasing power to be a monopoly in one area, it's not illegal. The only illegality comes when a monopoly is abused.

Microsoft took their Windows monopoly to put IE on the desktop. There was no need for any third-party browser now, and that desktop monopoly became an web browser monopoly as well, something we all are fighting to this day. IE6 will not die, and IE in general still holds a commanding share of web browser "marketshare".

Apple had a monopoly on selling music on iPods, but Amazon came up and took away that monopoly (because iPods play MP3s). In fact, the closest Apple had was when they were leveraging iPod sales and iTunes - this was why the EU was doing investigations into Apple. Now that Apple has gone DRM free, those concerns disappeared (because Apple sold music that only worked on iPods, thus limiting third party MP3 players from being able to play purchased music).

This case is that Apple is using it's "monopoly" on music sales to limit Amazon's ability to sell music. Namely, by demanding that the music labels cannot give preferential pricing to a third party without offering it on Apple's store as well. If a music label wants to make a track of the week 70 cents on Amazon, it also becomes 70 cents on iTunes.

Which seems bad, but remember that Apple and Amazon are also doing the exact same thing with each other on the ebook market. Apple gave publishers an option they liked better than Amazon's option, so publishers went with Apple, and Amazon relented. Apple's agreement with publishers is they don't give anyone but Apple preferential pricing. Amazon caved and went with the same agency model, and also demands that publishers cannot give preferential pricing to anyone else other than Amazon.

And Amazon's not exactly the innocent party as well - having "dealt with" publishers that refuse to go along with its pricing model by trying to "devalue" books from that publisher, or even worse, not offering to sell the book on its marketplace.

Apple's only real leverage is marketshare, and all it takes is someone to make a better iPod and all that advantage disappears. So Apple may have a monopoly on music sales, but it's far from a certain one and the iPod has to compete with everything else out there. Even music sold on Apple's store isn't locked to an iPod anymore, and modern MP3 players will play it just fine as well (say, Microsoft's Zune).

Actually, it is not illegal to have a monopoly. Natural monopolies aside, if someone is able to garner enough goodwill and purchasing power to be a monopoly in one area, it's not illegal. The only illegality comes when a monopoly is abused.

To be more specific, it's anti-competitive behavior that is illegal. You do not need to be a monopoly to be anti-competitive, though it definitely helps. Nor having a monopoly on something is anti-competitive in and of itself.

The Music industry is probably still mad that Apple fought their 0.30 $ increase in prices and has the leverage to do so.

This doesn't seem like a big deal. The barrier to entry in creating an online music store seems pretty low, plus the files are now DRM free and playable on any player. Apple just seems to not want Amazon to get music before it does.

Not the mention it was a minor miracle that Steve Jobs got the major labels to sell their music online in the first place. I think that head start put itunes music store in the position it is in today.

Not the mention it was a minor miracle that Steve Jobs got the major labels to sell their music online in the first place.

This is one of the most fascinating things in recent tech/media history to me. I believe the labels' thinking at the time was that this was a test, and experimental roll-out. Because this new-fangled iPod and iTunes was a Mac-only thing at the time, and Macs had a tiny share of the computer market. So, they'd see if it worked. If it failed, no big deal, it's only a few Mac users. But to everybody's surprise, the iPod was insanely successful and Apple made the unprecedented move of releasing iTunes for Windows and adding USB support (early models were Firewire-only).

Basically, what the labels thought was a minor experiment turned into the future of their industry.

yes everybody's surprise. To this day I don't understand how the ipod/itunes bonanza occurred, given the prevalence of mp3s and availability of generic portable mp3 players. Every USB stick can double as a portable music library FFS!

Just goes to show that a "chic" product and clever marketing campaigns will always win out over practicality and common sense.

Yeah, small miracle that a prominent member of the Board of Directors for the world's largest media conglomerate would get media companies to sell their music online through his new service.

How would Jobs being a Disney board member persuade music publishers? That doesn't make any sense, especially as Jobs was not a Disney board member at the time.

Also, you forget that the music labels were (and still are) deathly afraid of online digital distribution. To them moving beyond physical discs was seen as a huge risk. To even be attempted, it had to be guaranteed to be extremely locked-down and restricted.

The Music industry is probably still mad that Apple fought their 0.30 $ increase in prices and has the leverage to do so.

Even at the cheaper price per track, it is still perfectly possible to buy the *LOSSLESS* CD cheaper than the download tracks if you do a little research and shopping around.

And get one thing clear in your head - if Steve Jobs and his board made this decision for purely altruistic reasons, Apple shareholders would have their butts kicked out the door without a moment's notice. No, it was

They weren't leveraging their dominance against the RIAA, they were leveraging their dominance OF the RIAA against potential competitors.

Allegedly, Apple threatened to retaliate if any music label participated in Amazon's 'MP3 Daily Deal' promotion, which offered early access to some MP3 tracks.

Which is great and all, except Amazon is already being charged differentially less than Apple in music royalties by the RIAA as a way of intentionally decreasing Apple's market share so they have less influence compared to the RIAA. Amazon is a stalking horse as much as a competitor here.

Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's as well. As it they get bigger then[sic] M$ they they may be forced to.

Apple might be forced to separate their desktop OS and desktop computer businesses, but not until they have dominance in one of those markets, we're talking 70% or so as a general guideline. It's unlikely they will ever reach such levels.

Apple also needs to open osx to all pc's as well.
As it they get bigger then M$ they they may be forced to.

That's a very strange logic, because if Apple licensed the Mac OS to generic hardware manufacturers, that would put them at greater risk of becoming an actual monopoly, because it would increase other companies' dependence on Apple.

If you could easily (and more importantly, officially) run Mac OS on cheap generic hardware, Windows might actually face a significant decline in marketshare, putting Apple in the same position that got Microsoft slapped with anti-trust suits.

Seems like a strange way to fight a supposed monopolist, by making it more monopoly-like.

A company going from small marketshare to moderate marketshare makes it no more monopoly-like than putting a small rock with another small rock makes them more blackhole-like. Sure, you could claim a scenario where Apple sudddenly has 90%+ of some market segment, but that doesn't seem likely. Making the two OSs compete directly should only help reduce any monopoly effect either company has.

Firstly, try to learn some English so you can write coherent sentences. Secondly, yes, the Apple "app store" censors and filters applications that Apple sells to users of Apple products. What's illegal about that? Wal-Mart isn't obligated to sell any particular brand of products. Any retail store can choose what they sell and what they don't. Why should the app store be any different?

"But people briefed on the inquiries also said investigators had asked in particular about recent allegations that Apple used its dominant market position to persuade music labels to refuse to give the online retailer Amazon.com exclusive access to music about to be released."

So... Amazon got first and only dibs to specific songs, thus restricting competition, and Apple is using monopoly power to tell music distributors not to do that?

*brain explodes*

I'm sure I'm going to sniff some RIAA lobbiest involvement in this once I reassemble my head.

Yeah. Since Amazon doesn't hold a controlling share of the digital music market, they're free to do that. Apple isn't.

Apple doesn't have a "controlling share" in the digital music market, they only have about 25%. Amazon has quite a large share itself, both from music downloads and CDs (you know what the D in CD stands for? It doesn't stand for digital, but the music on a CD _is_ digital). But the OP expressed himself badly: It is not Amazon who is restricting competition, it is whoever sells music to Amazon at a price that is so low they can sell music for less than Apple has to pay for it, and still make a profit. And Ap

So... Amazon got first and only dibs to specific songs, thus restricting competition, and Apple is using monopoly power to tell music distributors not to do that?

No. Amazon wanted the ability to have some songs from the music companies one day before everyone else. The music companies agreed. Apple came along and said, "If you do, we won't sell that song at all."

As they say on Slashdot, "but X is not a monopoly like Y! they play by different rules!". Normally, X=Apple and Y=Microsoft; in this particular case, X=Amazon and Y=Apple.

Simply put, the claim is that Apple has a monopoly, and therefore their influence on the market is anti-competitive, while Amazon isn't, so they are in the clear. Whether the logic is sound or not, it should be applied consistently.

Of course, the matter of Apple being a monopoly in the first place is a separate one. But, apparently, they h

So now its uncompetitive for Apple to complain about other companies trying to gain an unfair advantage. Amazon's program gave Amazon a monopoly since they would be the only ones selling the tracks early. I can only imagine what a sh*t storm Amazon would throw if Borders was able to sell select books a week before them or anyone else. Personally I feel all retail exclusivity agreements should be illegal. Including Cell phones and album/tracks. The only stuff that should be "available only at wal-mart" is bad taste and bad judgment.

TRRosen is on topic.
Amazon wants to be able to sell content "exclusively" before anyone else can. Apple isn't happy with that and can you blame them. It seems like Apple is saying to the record companies "if you give preference to Amazon over us, then we'll do the same and give preference to other labels over you" That sounds pretty fair to me. If it were Apple asking for the exclusivity then it would be a different story.

It affects me because despite being an honest, CD-buying music lover who laughs at the fools who pay good money for lossy downloads, I still suffer the ramifications of DRM which companies like Apple fully back.

And on a wider issue, it supports the distribution of "pick and mix sweety" music because a minority of people who call themselves music fans haven't got the patience or enough time in their day to research their music properly and *SIT DOWN AND LISTEN TO A GOOD ALBUM* (of which, despite opinions to

I still suffer the ramifications of DRM which companies like Apple fully back.

You mean, the DRM that Apple actively campaigned against? That's an odd definition of "fully back."

And on a wider issue, it supports the distribution of "pick and mix sweety" music because a minority of people who call themselves music fans haven't got the patience or enough time in their day to research their music properly and *SIT DOWN AND LISTEN TO A GOOD ALBUM* (of which, despite opinions to the contrary, there are many thousands if you look beyond the cheap plasticized music thrown at you in marketing and over-hype).

Fuck the hell off. You can easily buy full albums from iTunes. And contrary to your belief, there are plenty of artists who you wouldn't want to buy the full album, but might like to buy just a track or two. I thought consumer choice was good?

How is Apple stopping artists from releasing good, coherent albums?

This in turn ultimately means that proper musicians who *DO* have the capability of putting together albums that are good from start to finish will be forced out of making music because it will be much cheaper for record companies to catapult some talentless moistened bint to the public's attention, despite her only skill being the ability to wiggle her backside at a video camera.

Sounds more like you are describing the 1990s MTV music video scene, when people had less choice in the

You mean, the DRM that Apple actively campaigned against? That's an odd definition of "fully back."

So they campaigned against themselves then? Because originally the only stuff you could buy from them was DRMed music, until the public outcry was so great they were *FORCED* to drop it. Get your facts right.

Fuck the hell off.

Well that's an intelligent response.

You can easily buy full albums from iTunes.

Why would I want to do that? I can buy CDs for the same price or cheaper, have nice lossless music and rip t

So they campaigned against themselves then? Because originally the only stuff you could buy from them was DRMed music, until the public outcry was so great they were *FORCED* to drop it. Get your facts right.

No, get your facts right. The music labels required Apple to implement DRM as a condition of selling music in the first place. Apple did not want it to begin with. But they had no choice, as without DRM, the labels would not give them a license to sell music online.

Once Apple had gained enough marketshare and power, Jobs asked the labels to sell the music without DRM. It had nothing to do with public outcry.

Why would I want to do that? I can buy CDs for the same price or cheaper, have nice lossless music and rip them myself to whatever format I want - and have an automatic backup in a nice plastic case I can store on a shelf.

Good for you. You have consumer choice, yay! This goes directly against your argument that somehow Ap

No, get your facts right. The music labels required Apple to implement DRM as a condition of selling music in the first place. Apple did not want it to begin with. But they had no choice, as without DRM, the labels would not give them a license to sell music online.

Oh, I see. So Amazon and much smaller download sites were able to avoid selling DRM music in the first place but *BIG BAD APPLE* was coerced...

Once Apple had gained enough marketshare and power, Jobs asked the labels to sell the music without DRM